|
Post by zooba on May 31, 2007 10:31:13 GMT -5
Since this topic recently came up in another thread I thought I would start a thread here for further discussion of the issue. I shall post here a list of questions I posted on Firestream for the theistic evolutionists to answer, based on the areas of the Bible that I believe show conclusively that the Bible and evolution are NOT compatable. I have copied the questions here essentially verbatim, though with a few small comments added in square brackets [ ]. I ask the following questions: 1) As I have shown above the Genesis account of creation and the evolutionary account of the big bang are completely different (Genesis says that the earth existed and was fully vegetated before the rest of the universe even existed, etc.) which do you believe? Are you willing to reject the entire creation account in Genesis because evolution says that that order of creation is impossible? Do you therefore reject every other miracle in the Bible (such as the resurrection of Jesus Christ) because science and evolution says they are impossible also? If not, why? 2) Who was Adam? And what do you make of the Genesis account of the creation of Eve - particularly Genesis 2:20-23: ...But for Adam no suitable helper was found. So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh. Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.
The man said, "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman' for she was taken out of man."Surely if Adam were not the first man (he must have had parents at least), then he would have had no problem finding a helper amongst any of the other women living nearby. Instead of knocking Adam out to create a woman from him, He would have just said, 'Eve is a nice girl, take her'. 3) At what point did sin enter into the Earth? Biblically it is undeniable that sin entered the earth with Adam and Eve - if that is so, then how do you explain all the billions of years of death, violence, suffering and disease that are supposed to have taken place before the original sin of Adam and Eve? Remember also that before Adam and Eve sinned, God looked at what he had made a said it was 'very good.' [remember also that after the fall that NO-ONE is considered good and righteous, yet before the fall the earth is said to be ‘very good’. I truly have no idea what the theistic evolutionist says happened at the fall]. 4) In the part of the Bible where it says, 'for all have sinned and all fall short of the glory of God.', does that mean that Adam and Eve's parents were sinful? Or if sin entered into the world through Adam and Eve, were Adam and Eve's parents not fully human? Please explain. 5) How do you explain the Bible when it says 'and there was evening, and there was morning, the xth day' after each day of creation? 6) How do you explain the 4th commandment?: (Exodus 20:8-11) "Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates. For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.Why would God command the Israelite to work for 6 days then rest of the sabbath in the same way that he had created the earth in 6 days and then rested, if he had infact not created the earth in 6 days? Wouldn't that mean God was lying to the Israelites? 7) [not actually a question, but hey] Read the geneology of Jesus given in Luke chapter 3, particularly verse 38: …the son of Kenan, the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God. ‘Adam, the Son of God.’ Theistic evolutionists have no way to explain those verses beyond saying, ‘it doesn’t really mean that’ or ‘that is an error/mistranslation etc.’, showing that once again the idea of theistic evolution exists in spite of what the Bible teaches, not because of it. I believe that anyone who believes that evolution and the Bible are compatable have only a nominal understanding of what those 2 thing teach. A proper, in-depth examination of Genesis and evolution shows them to be utterly irreconcilable. And thats it. Also to further versions of this I would add the various verses in the NT (particularly Paul’s epistles) that call Adam the ‘first man’, but I can’t be bothered finding those references now Here is a cartoon I found on the AiG website that I believe sums it all up very nicely:
|
|
|
Post by zooba on May 31, 2007 11:15:26 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Todd on Jun 1, 2007 0:48:18 GMT -5
have you been reading the theology threads on firestream again? LOL
|
|
|
Post by zooba on Jun 1, 2007 1:13:23 GMT -5
actually I was referring to the thread on the GF board If you recognise my post, I posted this on Firestream a while ago and I recognised my work for the masterpiece that it was so I saved a copy
|
|
|
Post by Todd on Jun 1, 2007 20:40:53 GMT -5
HAHAHAHA Brilliant!
|
|
|
Post by Todd on Jun 1, 2007 20:44:28 GMT -5
I am in agreement, and here's why......
To show God used 'evolution' as a means of 'creation' he would be a liar and cease to exists........it would have been written "in the beginning God created the........protein puddle from which all life erupted from into a glorious cacophony of unnatural, natural selections". such ideas, to me, are ludicrous. To say God uses evolution is no different than saying I wrote a book without having a thought. Like and elevator in an outhouse, evolution is the pimple on the nerd of society's face.
|
|
|
Post by trailblazer777 on Jul 6, 2007 21:29:45 GMT -5
evolution was a an attempt to try and explain the world without God, it never needed or wanted God, and christians are really silly to try and incorporate it with the bible IMO. cos they will never really go together well, and better scientific truth is to be found when you start from the assumption the bible is God inspired absolute truth, and the assumption (fact I would say) that evolution is man inspired false religious teaching just like cults...except this is a cult designed by atheists...the religious beleif of evolution only works weel for "there is no God", "I dont care if there is a God" "I havent thought about God" "I dont want to know God" "God is dead", "God is a figment of imaginations", "all religions are ok" type thinkers... not for Jesus (the Christ) is the way truth and life, noone comes to the Father except by Him type thinking... theistic evolution IMO and many highly respected scientists with multiple PH D 's opionions is intellectually stupid and does not make sense... see www.christiananswers.net/they link to answersingenesis
|
|
jcthemosher
Active Discussion Person
MOSH-tastic!
Life's Short, Pray Hard
Posts: 713
|
Post by jcthemosher on Jul 10, 2007 23:14:25 GMT -5
Does anyone have an a opinion on Old Earth Creationism vs Young Earth Creationism and does it really matter?
|
|
|
Post by zooba on Jul 11, 2007 0:06:48 GMT -5
Does it matter in terms of salvation? No. But I have said it before and will probably say it many more times before I die - you absolutely cannot hold to anything but a literal 6 day interpretation of genesis and then have any reason for still holding to biblical inerrancy. I know there are many who claim to, but generally I notice in discussion with them that they haven't thought through their position very well. Once biblical inerrancy is gone, thats a foot in the door for all sorts of weird and wonderful doctrines - 'we don't like the idea of an eternal punishment, that must a later corruption', 'those condemnations of homosexuality are so mean, that must be a later corruption' or (and this one is really common), 'saying that Jesus is the only way to salvation is so narrow-minded and unloving, that must be a latter corruption', etc. Though Old earth creationists (OEC for short) as opposed to theistic evolutions say that they don't believe in evolution, rather that they just don't take the 6 days of creation literally, the only reason to NOT take the 6 days of creation literally is because of belief in evolution. For example, an OEC will look at a mountain range as say 'gee, that looks old, there is no way that the earth can really only be 6,500 years old, therefore Genesis can't be taken literally. But then, why do they say that the mountains 'look' old? - because the theory of evolution says that mountain ranges take millions of years to form, therefore those mountains MUST be old. If you reject the theory of evolution outright (as I do) then you have no reason whatever to believe that the earth 'looks' old, and no reason whatever to doubt the literal interpretation of genesis (obviously, a clear reading of genesis itself shows that the 6 days are 6 literal days). People say that the debate over genesis and creation is really irrelevant, why do we bother arguing etc, yet I truly believe that that attitude has resulted in the enslavement of many to a variety of cults and their false doctrines because when scripture no longer says what it means and means what it says but rather means whatever you want it to say, rampant heresy and false doctrines is the only logical result. I told you I feel strongly about this There are a few pro-OEC books out at Koorong, I always arrange the shelves in such a way as to hope people don't notice them (turning them spine-out instead of face-out, etc), lol. Actually I wish I was a few years older and more learned so I could buy said books and write rebuttals of them.
|
|
|
Post by trailblazer777 on Jul 11, 2007 4:00:41 GMT -5
well put zooba...way to go! lol re the books on the shelves... ;D I think its likely the earth is no older than 6-12,000 years, but whats more important than trying to set the exact date of creation, is that we take the 6 days as normal days with evening and morning as God has said, and I see no reason why they wouldn't be 24 hour days, especially as Adam lived through the 6th day and into the 7th, 8th and so on... however God knows a lot more than we of mankind do. so it does matter how you view the days of creation and if by definition OEC reject the notion of 24 hour days, then I'd say the YEC position is better and yes it does not matter not for salvation, probably not for many ministry situations, but at the end of the day, its something christians should fight for being upheld as the truth it is for many reasons...so its not crucial in the short term but in the long term it certainly is. for example I think the hugh ross approach while an improvement on theistic evolution does not go far enough...and leaves christians in intellectual limbo/no-mans land caught between the truth and lies. sounds like a stryper song off the against the law album..."caught in the middle..." IMO God gives us plenty of room for variation on how old the earth ( 6-8-10,000-12,000) as long as the 24 hour days of creation are not discarded... there is also a lotof debate among YEC scientists first the south australians statistical model, then Dr Russell Humphreys book (Ive got it somewhere, and I went to his seminars when he was in Perth in the 90's)...and then still more debate... about speed of light/expanding of the universe and how this effects time, light and things like this... So there may be some gems of scientific, but God given knowledge there waiting to be discovered by those with a YEC worldview...very unlikely evolutionists/theistic evolutionists, and less likely OEC would see it cos they have too many wrong assumptions polluting/corrupting their thinking like bad unoriginal html programming (for example mine).... ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by metasaiah on Jul 11, 2007 7:25:23 GMT -5
You guys have got a great perspective on all of this. Like you I believe in a YEC and literal as-read creation. What I'm curious about is whether the old-earth belief comes from the evolutionary belief, or if the two ideas are separate? This is something I have little knowledge on despite a keen interest in the topic. So, Who was the first proponent of the OE idea?
|
|
|
Post by zooba on Jul 11, 2007 9:36:28 GMT -5
Old earth belief by its very nature is derived from evolution (directly or indirectly) because, as I said, the only reason people believe that the earth is old is because the theory of evolution says that is has to be. Before evolution (particular around the 1500s) the argument was reversed - people were arguing that the 6 days of creation weren't literal because an almighty God couldn't possibly take as LONG as 6 days to make the earth. Calvin (amongst others no doubt) argued for a literal 6 day interpretation of Genesis. I would be very, very surprised if ANYONE before Darwin even hinted the possibility of an old Earth view of Genesis.
|
|
|
Post by metasaiah on Jul 12, 2007 8:52:42 GMT -5
The reason I asked who proposed the idea is because one could argue that the idea of an old earth inspired the theory of evolution, if we don't know which came first. Since it was obviously not Christians who proposed either idea, I'm not sure that God's power was taken into consideration...
|
|
|
Post by Todd on Jul 12, 2007 15:48:43 GMT -5
according to the Jews the earth is not even 5,900 years old yet.
|
|
|
Post by trailblazer777 on Jul 14, 2007 8:37:33 GMT -5
not sure why Jews would think that, where do they say that not heard that one..is that due to how they measure genologies...we know that Bishop usher (not a jew) did a calculation about 1640....but remember reading it somehwre in creationist literature) based on genoelogies in bible (adding up number of years in genesis etc how long each person lived for in according to bible) and came up with what is now around 6000 years or date of creation as 4004BC...maybe the 5900 comes from...something similiar...naturally the Jews may have a different or maybe more correct understanding of chronology from their excellent old testament knowledge... my gut feeling is that OEC comes from christians who have tried to find a middle ground (like Hugh Ross for example) somewhere between Ushers 6000 years and evolutionary views of many hundreds of thousands of years longer......or simply to find a figure which fits a bit better with some of the more plausible carbon dating and other ways of dating things in the world..... but as far as metas question goes who first proposed an old earth idea, not sure, have to do some more research although we know that the big bang theory and presumably Darwin,Huxley, and carbon dating started with old earth assumptions... of course carbon dating (and other related ways of dating for example potassium argon dating) relys on assumptions which can change drastically depending on whether you take an evolutionary or strict creationist (YEC) or in between (OEC) view anyway...and things which are still alive have been dated as having died many thousands of years ago using evolutionary assumption driven carbon dating, but correct date of dead things often lines up better with a creationist group of assumptions on carbon dating than an evolutionary group of assumptions on the same method of carbon dating...i.e. the error based on evolutionary assumptions for arguements case in some cases might be thousands or even millions of years wrong whereas the creationist assumptions yield a result within a few hundred years of correct date as checked by other ways of dating something...so therefore much more reliable... my dad is a physics and chemistry teacher of 40 years (Dr Moses would remember him as my dad was the principal for a short time of emmaus school now armadale christian college in bedfordale) so he understands the carbon dating stuff well, I did chemistry in year 12 and also a bit of biochemistry in my sports science units at uni so I used to have a rough idea how it works, plus some creationist literature explains it well, but I'd have to read up again cos its many years since I've dealt with it... hard to remember now but obviously the big bang has a lot to do with the date proposed by evolutionists being so old too...Dr Russel Humphreys (Sandia Laboratorys USA) is a physicist and his starlight and time book (Ive got it somewhere) has some interesting things to say about wrong assumptions of the big bang theory too.... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ussher_chronologyfrom the maligned wikipedia; Ussher's history of the Earth Ussher's chronology provides the following dates for key events in the Biblical history of the world: 4004 BC - Creation 2348 BC - The Great Flood 1921 BC - God's call to Abraham 1491 BC - The Exodus from Egypt 1012 BC - The founding of the Temple in Jerusalem 586 BC - The destruction of Jerusalem by Babylon and the beginning of the Babylonian Captivity 4 BC - The birth of Jesus Ussher's chronology today It may be an accident of history that Ussher's chronology remains so well known while those of Scaliger and Bede, amongst others, have slipped into obscurity. YEC generally would say Ushers chronology while not necessarily correct to the year or even the thousandth year, offers a good starting point in guestimating the age of the earth, and is a much better framework and assumption to start with than the big bang theory and massive error prone carbon dating stuff... In australia you often hear people talking about the Aboriginals having been here for 40,000 years etc...a YEC view would assume that is an incorrect date (and I'd agree), while a OEC view might just accomodate it......
|
|
|
Post by trailblazer777 on Jul 14, 2007 8:59:13 GMT -5
For a more trustworthy treatment of this subject the late Henry Morris (1918-2006) 's book the Long War against God or some of his other ones are good places to trace the origins of the specious lies and theories about an old earth. Alfred Russel Wallace in particular possibly has rather a satanic background. obsession with spiritualism, seances, hypnosis and the like. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpiritualismSpiritualism is a religious movement that began in the United States and was prominent in the 1840s–1920s, especially in English-speaking countries. The movement's distinguishing feature is the belief that the spirits of the dead can be contacted by mediums. These spirits are believed to lie on a higher plane of existence than humans, and are therefore capable of providing guidance in both worldly and spiritual matters. spiritualists often claim to beleive in God, but talking to spirits being a higher authority than Bible which contradicts them by saying test the spirits by the Bible not the other way round... leaves them open to demons pretending to be spirits of dead people leading them astray... closely related to necromancy (see Mortification song on Scrolls of Megilloth album) or Saul and witch of Endor in the Bible see 1 Samuel chapter 28 www.biblegateway.com/Wallace played an important role in being a motivator for Lyell and Darwin to push their ideas strongly, as they wanted to get their ideas published before Wallace did or something like that..either way Wallace was a key player. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Big_Bang say; Finally, objects on the scale of our solar system form. Our sun is a late-generation star, incorporating the debris from many generations of earlier stars, and formed roughly 5 billion years ago, or roughly 8 to 9 billion years after the big bang. Today, 13.7 billion years The best current data estimates the age of the universe today as 13.7 billion years since the big bang. assume earth around 4.8-5 billion years old...humans much younger... www.talkorigins.org/faqs/geohist.htmlthis strongly evolutionary biased site? (but does at least acknowledge some of the older creationist writings like Henry Morris in the 1960's-1980's) reckons; says earth is 4.5 billion years old, Buffon,deMaillet proposed 75,000-billions of years for the age of the earth around 1774-1780. Lyell and Hutton were early old earthers with their geological ideas around 1780-1830...Then Lyell combined forces with Darwin,Wallace and Huxley around 1850? and a major shift in scientific circles took place from 1850ish onwards... ******* Before the 1700's everyone! thought the earth was about 6,000 years old... ******* although there was some questioning of Noahs flood as early as 1510 maybe? which may have been the beginning of the theoretical basis that eventually led to Lyell and Huttons ideas about 270 years later. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_DarwinDarwin,Wallace,Lyell, and eventually Huxley were the beginning of evolutionary theory in the 1800's so less than 200 years ago after Darwins journey on the HMS Beagle around much of the world...they basically were going against the dominant scientific view of the entire intellectual world at the time, just as YEC are a minority that could become a majority again one day...signs are it could be soon. so that would suggest the old earth idea has been around since about 1774 (about 233 years ago), but didn't become combined with Darwin, Wallace, Huxley and Lyells evolutionary ideas until mid to late 1800's and developed further in the early 1900's. YEC are a minority that could become a majority again soon... creationist museum in USA, and intelligent design being offered in american schools? (thanks George Bush?), the institute for creation research, Creation magazine (previously Creation ex nihlio (latin for "out of nothing" I think)) in the last few decades, christiananswers.net website are signs YEC is gathering momentum academically again... www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/www.creationresearch.org/www.icr.org/$27million creation museum in Kentucky USA opened in 2007. An australian Ken Ham had a lot to do with it. icr.org/article/3377/icr.org/article/3379/A recent USA Today/Gallup poll1 indicates that 66%—two thirds—of Americans believe that “God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years.” www.creationmuseum.org/new york times article about museum; travel.nytimes.com/2007/05/24/arts/24crea.htmlpretty good article IMO except for a few dodgy statements like the last sentence about natural selection...creationists don't reject "natural" selection totally just some of the assumptions attached to darwins version. www.christiananswers.net/The young earth idea has been around for about 6,000 years and while it has lost popularity and almost disappeared in the last 230 years, it has begun to become popular again in the last 50 years or so, especially the last 15-30 years.
|
|
|
Post by Todd on Jul 24, 2007 0:45:11 GMT -5
I do have one question........... if evolution is fact, why is it called a theory?
|
|
|
Post by Todd on Sept 24, 2007 16:27:37 GMT -5
here is another good article on theistic evolution........ www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c015.html
10 Dangers of Theistic Evolution
The atheistic formula for evolution is:
* Evolution = matter + evolutionary factors (chance and necessity + mutation + selection + isolation + death) + very long time periods.
In the theistic evolutionary view, God is added:
* Theistic evolution = matter + evolutionary factors (chance and necessity + mutation + selection + isolation + death) + very long time periods + God.
In the theistic evolutionary system, God is not the omnipotent Lord of all things, whose Word has to be taken seriously by all men, but He is integrated into the evolutionary philosophy. This leads to 10 dangers for Christians.1 Danger NO. 1… Misrepresentation of the Nature of God
The Bible reveals God to us as our Father in Heaven, who is absolutely perfect (Matthew 5:48), holy (Isaiah 6:3), and omnipotent (Jeremiah 32:17). The Apostle John tells us that "God is love", "light", and "life" (1 John 4:16; 1:5; 1:1-2). When this God creates something, His work is described as "very good" (Genesis 1:31) and "perfect" (Deuteronomy 32:4).
Theistic evolution gives a false representation of the nature of God because death and ghastliness are ascribed to the Creator as principles of creation. (Progressive creationism, likewise, allows for millions of years of death and horror before sin.) Danger NO. 2… God becomes a God of the Gaps
The Bible states that God is the Prime Cause of all things. "But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things… and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by Him" (1 Corinthians 8:6).
However, in theistic evolution the only workspace allotted to God is that part of nature which evolution cannot "explain" with the means presently at its disposal. In this way He is reduced to being a "god of the gaps" for those phenomena about which there are doubts. This leads to the view that "God is therefore not absolute, but He Himself has evolved - He is evolution".2 Danger NO. 3… Denial of Central Biblical Teachings
The entire Bible bears witness that we are dealing with a source of truth authored by God (2 Timothy 3:16), with the Old Testament as the indispensable "ramp" leading to the New Testament, like an access road leads to a motor freeway (John 5:39). The biblical creation account should not be regarded as a myth, a parable, or an Allegory, but as a historical report, because:
* Biological, astronomical and anthropological facts are given in didactic [teaching] form. * In the Ten Commandments God bases the six working days and one day of rest on the same time-span as that described in the creation account (Exodus 20:8-11). * In the New Testament Jesus referred to facts of the creation (e.g. Matthew 19:4-5). * Nowhere in the Bible are there any indications that the creation account should be understood in any other way than as a factual report.
The doctrine of theistic evolution undermines this basic way of reading the Bible, as vouched for by Jesus, the prophets and the Apostles. Events reported in the Bible are reduced to mythical imagery, and an understanding of the message of the Bible as being true in word and meaning is lost. Danger NO. 4… Loss of the Way for Finding God
The Bible describes man as being completely ensnared by sin after Adam's fall (Romans 7:18-19). Only those persons who realize that they are sinful and lost will seek the Savior who "came to save that which was lost" (Luke 19:10).
However, evolution knows no sin in the biblical sense of missing one's purpose (in relation to God). Sin is made meaningless, and that is exactly the opposite of what the Holy Spirit does - He declares sin to be sinful. If sin is seen as a harmless evolutionary factor, then one has lost the key for finding God, which is not resolved by adding "God" to the evolutionary scenario. Danger NO. 5… The Doctrine of God's Incarnation is Undermined
The incarnation of God through His Son Jesus Christ is one of the basic teachings of the Bible. The Bible states that "The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us" (John 1:14), "Christ Jesus… was made in the likeness of men" (Philippians 2:5-7).
The idea of evolution undermines this foundation of our salvation. Evolutionist Hoimar von Ditfurth discusses the incompatibility of Jesus' incarnation and evolutionary thought: "Consideration of evolution inevitably forces us to a critical review… of Christian formulations. This clearly holds for the central Christian concept of the 'incarnation' of God… ".3 Danger NO. 6… The Biblical Basis of Jesus' Work of Redemption Is Mythologized
The Bible teaches that the first man's fall into sin was a real event and that this was the direct cause of sin in the world: "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned" (Romans 5:12).
Theistic evolution does not acknowledge Adam as the first man, nor that he was created directly from "the dust of the ground" by God (Genesis 2:17). Most theistic evolutionists regard the creation account as being merely a mythical tale, albeit with some spiritual significance. However, the sinner Adam and the Savior Jesus are linked together in the Bible - Romans 5:16-18. Thus any view which mythologizes Adam undermines the biblical basis of Jesus' work of redemption. Danger NO. 7… Loss of Biblical Chronology
The Bible provides us with a time-scale for history and this underlies a proper understanding of the Bible. This time-scale includes:
* The time-scale cannot be extended indefinitely into the past, nor into the future. There is a well-defined beginning in Genesis 1:1, as well as a moment when physical time will end (Matthew 24:14). * The total duration of creation was six days (Exodus 20:11). * The age of the universe may be estimated in terms of the genealogies recorded in the Bible (but note that it can not be calculated exactly). It is of the order of several thousand years, not billions. * Galatians 4:4 points out the most outstanding event in the world's history: "But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth His Son." This happened nearly 2,000 years ago. * The return of Christ in power and glory is the greatest expected future event.
Supporters of theistic evolution (and progressive creation) disregard the biblically given measures of time in favor of evolutionist time-scales involving billions of years both past and future (for which there are no convincing physical grounds). This can lead to two errors:
1. Not all statements of the Bible are to be taken seriously. 2. Vigilance concerning the second coming of Jesus may be lost.
Danger NO. 8… Loss of Creation Concepts
Certain essential creation concepts are taught in the Bible. These include:
* God created matter without using any available material. * God created the earth first, and on the fourth day He added the moon, the solar system, our local galaxy, and all other star systems. This sequence conflicts with all ideas of "cosmic evolution", such as the "big bang" cosmology.
Theistic evolution ignores all such biblical creation principles and replaces them with evolutionary notions, thereby contradicting and opposing God's omnipotent acts of creation. Danger NO. 9… Misrepresentation of Reality
The Bible carries the seal of truth, and all its pronouncements are authoritative - whether they deal with questions of faith and salvation, daily living, or matters of scientific importance.
Evolutionists brush all this aside, e.g. Richard Dawkins says, "Nearly all peoples have developed their own creation myth, and the Genesis story is just the one that happened to have been adopted by one particular tribe of Middle Eastern herders. It has no more special status than the belief of a particular West African tribe that the world was created from the excrement of ants".4
If evolution is false, then numerous sciences have embraced false testimony. Whenever these sciences conform with evolutionary views, they misrepresent reality. How much more then a theology which departs from what the Bible says and embraces evolution! Danger NO. 10… Missing the Purpose
In no other historical book do we find so many and such valuable statements of purpose for man as in the Bible. For example:
1. Man is God's purpose in creation (Genesis 1:27-28). 2. Man is the purpose of God's plan of redemption (Isaiah 53:5). 3. Man is the purpose of the mission of God's Son (1 John 4:9). 4. We are the purpose of God's inheritance (Titus 3:7). 5. Heaven is our destination (1 Peter 1:4).
However, the very thought of purposefulness is anathema to evolutionists. "Evolutionary adaptations never follow a purposeful program, they thus can not be regarded as teleonomical."5 Thus a belief system such as theistic evolution that marries purposefulness with non-purposefulness is a contradiction in terms. CONCLUSION
The doctrines of creation and evolution are so strongly divergent that reconciliation is totally impossible. The theistic evolutionists attempt to integrate the two doctrines; however such syncretism reduces the message of the Bible to insignificance. The conclusion is inevitable: There is no support for theistic evolution in the Bible. REFERENCES
1. This article has been adapted from chapter 8, "The Consequences of Theistic Evolution", from Dr. Werner Gitt's book, Did God use Evolution?, Christliche Literatur-Verbreitung e.V., Postfach 11 01 35 . 33661, Bielefeld, Germany.
2. E. Jantsch, Die Selbstorganisation des Universums, Munchen, 1979, p. 412.
3. Hoimar von Ditfurth, Wir sind nicht nur von dieser Welt, Munchen, 1984, pp. 21-22.
4. Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, Penguin Books, London, 1986, p. 316.
5. H. Penzlin, Das Teleologie-Problem in der Biologie, Biologische Rundschau, 25 (1987), S.7-26, p. 19.
WHAT DOES THEISTIC EVOLUTION INVOLVE?* * This section is adapted from Werner Gitt's, Did God Use Evolution?, pp. 13-16, 24.
The following evolutionary assumptions are generally applicable to theistic evolution:
* The basic principle, evolution, is taken for granted. * It is believed that evolution is a universal principle. * As far as scientific laws are concerned, there is no difference between the origin of the earth and all life and its subsequent development (the principle of uniformity). * Evolution relies on processes that allow increases in organization from the simple to the complex, from non-life to life, and from lower to higher forms of life. * The driving forces of evolution are mutation, selection, isolation, and mixing. Chance and necessity, long time epochs, ecological changes, and death are additional indispensable factors. * The time line is so prolonged that anyone can have as much time as he/she likes for the process of evolution. * The present is the key to the past. * There was a smooth transition from non-life to life. * Evolution will persist into the distant future.
In addition to these evolutionary assumptions, three additional beliefs apply to theistic evolution:
1. God used evolution as a means of creating. 2. The Bible contains no usable or relevant ideas which can be applied in present-day origins science. 3. Evolutionistic pronouncements have priority over biblical statements. The Bible must be reinterpreted when and wherever it contradicts the present evolutionary world view.
Author: Werner Gitt, Creation Magazine, Sep-Nov 1995, Vol. 17, No. 4, pp. 49-51. Supplied by Answers in Genesis
PROFESSOR WERNER GITT received his doctorate summa cum laude, together with the prestigious Borchers Medal, from the Technical University of Aachen, Germany, in 1970. He is now Director and Professor at the German Federal Institute of Physics (Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt). He has written numerous scientific papers in the field of information science, numerical mathematics, and control engineering, as well as several popular books, some of which have been translated into Bulgarian, Czech, English, Finnish, French, Hungarian, Italian, Polish and Russian.
Copyright © 1996, Answers in Genesis, All Rights Reserved - except as noted on attached “Usage and Copyright” page that grants ChristianAnswers.Net users generous rights for putting this page to work in their homes, personal witnessing, churches and schools.
|
|
jcthemosher
Active Discussion Person
MOSH-tastic!
Life's Short, Pray Hard
Posts: 713
|
Post by jcthemosher on Oct 3, 2007 8:07:51 GMT -5
I came up with arround the same figure when I was 10 years old, before hearing anyone elses theory (like Ussher), I just read the Bible and did the math! Simple!
Evolution (lat Loadious Crapious): A theory built on theories, built on theories, to explain theories, that no one ever can prove.
|
|
|
Post by Todd on Oct 3, 2007 16:43:29 GMT -5
which is exactly why i don't' believe in evolution LOL
|
|